MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127791786 · doi:10.55540/0031-1723.2772

Canada's Lessons

2019· article· en· W3127791786 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Howard G. Coombs

Bibliographic record

VenueThe US Army War College Quarterly Parameters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
FundersCommand and General Staff CollegeCanadian Armed Forces
KeywordsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reflects on the evolution of Canada's whole-of-government approach in the context of international cooperation in Afghanistan.Although the effort resulted in great gains when Canadian Forces were actively involved in combat roles, the nation does not seem interested in maintaining the capability as a framework for quickly responding to current or future international crises.P olitical scientist Stephen M. Saideman captured the incomplete state of Canada's post-Afghanistan learning with this simple advice: Canada should "not to do it again." 1 Five years after the commitment ended, national introspection has been left to scholars attempting to understand the consequential changes.To comprehend the modifications resulting from Canada's experiences in Afghanistan, one must understand the shifts that occurred within the government during the conflict and then scrutinize the outcomes.2 Finally, reflection can occur to determine if the efforts changed how Canada engages in post-Afghanistan missions and if there are lessons that have been learned and implemented.3 The unprecedented level of interdepartmental cooperation and involvement that was necessary to advance objectives in Afghanistan obviously made the effort unique.By the end of the combat mission in 2011, needs for integrated strategic coordination, planning, and guidance, as well as requirements for interoperational departments were accepted and applied.These were necessary to produce integrated effects, or impacts, in the mission area.Notably, other countries involved in this North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) commitment, such as the United States, faced similar challenges, which also resulted in adaptation and innovation.This article demonstrates that, despite Canada identifying and implementing these lessons during the Canadian combat mission The author would like to thank Brigadier-General (Retired) Serge Labbé, Colonel (Retired) Brett Boudreau, Major-General (Retired) Terrence "Terry" Liston, and Ms. Lindsay Coombs. 1 Stephen M. Saideman, "Lessons of History: What the Afghanistan

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.839

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0190.009
Scholarly communication0.0140.005
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0120.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe US Army War College Quarterly ParametersSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207